Tag Archives: Mark Driscoll

•

1) Remember "Palin Derangement Syndrome?" It happens with other people also.

When you are so determined to see bad in all things that even tangentially touch a person, you've got DS (Derangement Syndrome)

2) I am in NO WAY supporting or agreeing with the sins that Mark Driscoll as committed in his time at Mars Hill. I hope that he, his family, his church, and all those who have been injured by Driscoll's leadership find healing, repentance and forgiveness.

~~~

Warren Throckmorton has been making much hay over Mark Driscoll.

Some of the posts have been right on target. Others miss the mark.

Still others are full on "MDDS" (Mark Driscoll Derangement Syndrome)

When you go on the attack, aimed at John Piper, because he didn't say everything that you think he should have said in an ELEVEN MINUTE podcast, you've got MDDS

When you question the integrity of other authors, based on the fact that they use the same publicist as Driscoll, you've got MDDS.

When (this was a commenter) you suggest that Christian authors should not sell their work, but give it away as a PDF and wait for folks to "donate" what they think the work is worth---forgetting that the HOST of the blog you're commenting on is an author who (wait for it...) SELLS HIS WORK, you've got MDDS.

I've been following Throckmorton for a while, and his encouragement of the haters is disturbing and disheartening.

The information he puts out there is (perhaps) necessary, for those who have sat under Mark Driscoll, and want to keep tabs on the information in one place.

BUT...in order to keep the true haters (and MDDS) under a little more control, I'd suggest closing comments on all new posts concerning Mark Driscoll. If readership continues, Throckmorton will know that his information is still getting through to the right places.

If readership falls if commenters cannot continue ranting - that's a clue that Throckmorton's most common function has been to provide a venue for MDDS.

that should be worth thinking about.

• 2 Comments

•

 

Several years ago I was working with first graders trying to "get" math. One young lady really struggled with the concepts and one day she huffed and puffed and finally rolled her eyes and said, "I am so happy that Jesus invented erasers!"

Jesus is like that.

Psalm 103:12
as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

Isaiah 43:25
"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

It is people that have the eraser problem.

In another place, we're rehasing divorce and remarriage...Here is a quote from Mark Driscoll's church's position paper.

"...The consequence of sexual sin is grave and not resolvable for the offending spouse, outside the mercy and grace of the other spouse. Hardness of heart will demand punishment. Mercy and grace will work toward authentic repentance and restoration."

There are a couple of problems with this position.
1) This entire position leaves out GOD! Forgiveness and restoration depends not on God, but on people.
2) This position assumes that if the "offended" spouse refuses to forgive, it must be because the "offending" spouse is not authentically forgiven. It is dangerous to assume that.
3) Nothing is said of the sin of having a hard heart. If (generic) you refuse to forgive a repentant person, that is one of the things that should make you question whether or not you are even a Christian.

In this position, restoration depends entirely on another human being. A sinner can stand repentant before God and it just wouldn't matter.

Another place our human erasers have problems is with the false separation of forgiveness and restoration.

When we are forgiven by God, He does not hold our sins against us.
Often, when we are "forgiven" by people, we hear, "I forgive you, but I just can't..."

One (now departed) woman I knew said, "I forgive him, but I don't have to like him and I don't have to talk to him and I don't have to accept him." Is that forgiveness? It sure certainly isn't restoration.

And it is the opposite of 2 Cor 2:7-8 7 "...so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him."

There are three things needed for a sinner to be restored to the body. Forgiveness, comfort, reaffirming love.

Jay Adams says in "From Forgiven to Forgiving":

The word reaffirm is a specialized term...meaning to officially reinstate. When one repents and is readmitted into the church, he may not be accepted as a second-class citizen of the kingdom of God. God has no such citizens. The repentant one comes back with full rights and privileges of membership into the church...Now, in most reconciliation contexts, someone will not be reentering the church after having been disciplined out of it, but, in an unofficial way, the same thing holds. Neither you nor others should remain aloof from the brother or sister who is reinstated. Fu7ll fellowship must be restored. He should be restored with active, loving words and deeds by all..."

If you don't have this book, I strongly urge you to follow the link and get it (I don't get a cut, Baker is just my favorite Christian bookstore), read it and put it into practice. Putting the principles in this book into action has changed my relationship with my daughter. She knows that if she has repented for an action and I bring it up again, she can (and does) call me on it. I do the same with her. This recipricol accountability has changed things.

I know that it is impossible for a person to truly take a another at his or her word and forgive and not hold it against them. It is truly impossible. How can we comfort the person who sinned against us?!?

The answer is that we can't. Romans 7:18 says, "...For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. "

But there's hope, Philippians 4:13 says, "I can do all things through him who strengthens me."

A (then unsaved) friend of mine was once going through a very difficult situation and she said to me, "I'm not going to be able to do this without God, am I." Nope.

And no, forgiving God's way requires God. It keeps us humble and it keeps the forgiven one restored.

I think God planned it that way.

•

CASE ONE:
Tim Challies is reviewing "The Radical Reformission". I really liked the book and Mark Driscoll has a lot of good things to say. One of my biggest problems (there are two) is his use of denigrating language toward groups of people. Not theology - people.

In the book (copyright 2004) Driscoll gives his list of people that "I used to not like". In that list, he admits that he was prejudiced against (among others) most of the deep south and that he has had to repent of sinful attitudes against these groups of people.

Since that time, I've listened to a lot of Driscoll's sermons (available on line). They are good sermons, yet (for me at least) they were lowered a notch by the use of certain terms that refer to a general group of people in a negative way.

My flesh says that it's fun to make fun of people - God says not.

The bottom line is - it's easy to get sucked into things that make us look good at the expense of others. If I wouldn't want my kids to use (insert term here) in a negative way, I shouldn't use it - and if I shouldn't use it - well, I want to be able to point to this man as a good example - even as a good example of how to respect other groups of people.

Words mean things... the words you use and how you use them...

AND ON A RELATED TOPIC:

A couple of posts ago I made a statement about a "senseless and meaningless debate". Yes - those words mean something and I meant them then and I mean them now. Take the situation - two women who are convinced that their position is correct - and one has stated so publically; for the record, I believe that my many hours, weeks, month and even years of study of this issue have led me to a "verdict" that no person will sway me from. God - yes. He's done it before and I'm sure that on other issues, He'll do it again.

Back to my "senseless and meaningless debate" (or we could call them "strife and disputes") statement.

Two people convinced that they are right, going over the same material for a third time, without much real hope of either side changing their mind. If this is not a fine example of "senseless", I could find a better one, but...(Remember the "definition" of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.)

I stand by that statement - the debate is (for these two people, at this time) senseless. Are either of the debaters senseless? I never said that. Was it implied? I didn't mean that - I am weary of this debate. Did I name the person that wished for me to address the points? Absolutely!

But - words do mean things - what I did say (although my intent was to express my weariness at covering the same ground again) is that Elena has no desire to listen, only to argue. Elena is convinced in her own mind that she is right. So am I. I might as well be cutting and pasting the same thing over and over - as might she. If Elena made that statement about me on her blog, it would be a true statement. That is what makes the debate senseless.

What this does mean is that I should be more careful of how my words are used. Even though I stand convinced that my words were true - my wording left an impression of disrespect. For that I am sorry.

•

Not much.

Reading other blogs has inspired some thoughts - again on infant baptism, Mark Driscoll/the way we use our words, legalism vs. legal issues.

But, for this day - I have committed to parking my car and walking on all my errands. I've got my "not so trusty" pedometer - I think it catches about 1 of every 3 steps - my bottled water, my cell phone and my walking shoes.

😉

• 10 Comments

•

I have been reading and listening to a lot of Mark Driscoll, "The Radical Reformission". He has a lot of great things to say, but I'm increasingly hearing things that I don't like - which I intend to address directly to him.

One of the things that he says in his book is that external things don't matter - and specifically mentioned "goth" as a way of dressing. Here's the thing - I work in a high school and there is a dark spirit (way of feeling, not demon) that accomanies that dark way of dressing.

Don't get me wrong - I like to wear black - it's dramatic and goes great with my complexion and you can accessorize very easily! But I hardly ever (ok, I just don't) wear black with dog collars, purple hair and black lipstick.

When you see a young person calling themselves a Christian, dressing in that way - it's okay to ask a few questions - like "what are they identifying themselves with?"

Another thing that concerns me about Driscoll is his way of speaking of certain groups of people. He consistently uses "limp-wristed" and other terms that are reserved for men who are - well, less than masculine.

I listened to a sermon last night on Genesis 1 - and he referred a couple of times to "hillybilly rednecks" and "hillbilly redneck NASCAR fans" This bothers me, because if his congregation picks up on this (or picks this up) they will have learned that in their church, it's ok to use pejorative terms that put down entire groups of people.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want my kids talking like that - and I don't want to pick up talking like that.